Suggestions

Title didn't quite include exactly what I wanted to say but basically, I was wondering if Staff might consider making a poll asking the community if they'd be okay with them making Stained into a treasure/baldwin/coli gene? Since soap is out now.

I know they probably never changed how one gets a gene, but this feels like a special case, where there's a flat and a shiny version of a similar effect both in the gem MP.

But I also understand it'd possibly upset a lot of people who spent gems on stained. Hence, poll!

i dont think theyll change it, but wouldn't it make more sense to change how soap is acquired rather than stained? since soap is very very new, whereas stained is quiiite old.

I'm disappointed that they put Soap in the gem MP when it's basically a variation on what Stained does, it would have made a great stained alternative and a nice treasure sink and spread the 'transparent color overlay' gene look across two currencies instead of gate keeping the same effect behind premium currency both times. Which would have been nicer than what they chose to do.

But I genuinely doubt they'll change soap, let alone stained which has been a gem gene for years.

[quote name="PersimmonBird" date="2022-09-04 11:28:01" ] I'm disappointed that they put Soap in the gem MP when it's basically a variation on what Stained does, it would have made a great stained alternative and a nice treasure sink and spread the 'transparent color overlay' gene look across two currencies instead of gate keeping the same effect behind premium currency both times. Which would have been nicer than what they chose to do. But I genuinely doubt they'll change soap, let alone stained which has been a gem gene for years. [/quote] Huge same. I've said it before, but it feels like we've been getting a lot of gem terts lately which is extremely unbalanced and unfair, and isn't very good for the economy either. With more [i]gem[/i] sinks, the t:g ratio rises because more people need gems than they need treasure - especially true since more gem hibden spaces were added along with this update. A gene like this would be a great treasure sink, but now it's not really anything. Maybe a problem at most if it really does help drive inflation. Maybe I'm catastrophizing though. But I still think Soap would be a better Baldwin gene. It goes there thematically, it matches other Baldwin genes, it would provide a hefty treasure sink between the actual price of the gene itself and everything that'd be required to make it. EDIT: A quick edit to thank the user who actually compiled all the treasure/gem terts, it doesn't look quite so bad as I had assumed. It still feels like the gem terts have been very close together, but that might be my own perception of time and I recognize it as an invalid argument. I'll keep what I said for clarity, but I will change my opinion to say that I just think Soap makes more sense generally thematically as a Baldwin gene. That's still more of an opinion than solid fact, but it's the opinion I've settled on.

[quote name="PersimmonBird" date="2022-09-04 11:28:01" ] I'm disappointed that they put Soap in the gem MP when it's basically a variation on what Stained does, it would have made a great stained alternative and a nice treasure sink and spread the 'transparent color overlay' gene look across two currencies instead of gate keeping the same effect behind premium currency both times. Which would have been nicer than what they chose to do. But I genuinely doubt they'll change soap, let alone stained which has been a gem gene for years. [/quote] Yeah you hit the nail on the head with this one, and Soap would have been so perfect as Baldwin gene tbh :')

Yeah I would have been happy with it being a baldwin gene. It fits the whacky gooey vibe.

I am having hard time imaging any other poll option winning than "gimme cheaper gene", so a poll is not an appropriate way to decide anything related to money (real or imagined) because they will always be strongly biased towards cheaper to users option winning - to say nothing about the age of stained as a gene. No support.

TBH even when stained came out I didn't feel it was appropriate to be a gem gene because it is literally just a color overlay with decreased opacity. I personally refuse to buy the gene because I do not feel it warrants the premium currency whatsoever and should have been a treasure gene to begin with. However with how long it has been out they won't likely change it regardless of a polled out come surrounding it.

I support the poll, because I feel that staff should take the information and use it to help determine where genes like this should lay in the future. I don't expect that a poll of this kind would actually result in a change.

I do agree though that soap could have been something other than gem, I would have also liked to see it as a baldwin option, I feel like it might have been a 'happy accident' in his lab. I would love to see if moved or even just made a treasure gene.

I'd just like to see either Stained or Soap be made into a treasure gene, and I don't really care which one.
I feel like Baldwin would make sense for soap, but it could still be pretty expensive for people who don't really use baldwin? Honestly I think if either could just be a treasure gene for the sake of players having a cheaper option for a tert saver gene then I'd be happy.
It seems weird to me to make a stained variant but have it be a gem gene when the primary reason most people wanted to see a second stained-like gene was to have a cheaper option for projects.